HC Deb 25 April 1968 vol 763 cc474-7
Q1. Mr. Marten

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make another television broadcast to the nation on the economic situation.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

The Answer I gave to a similar Question by the hon. Member on 5th March still applies, Sir.

Mr. Marten

Will not the Prime Minister reconsider that Answer, as the effects of devaluation are still, in some people's minds, not very clear? In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the nation how the Government's policy of a nil norm in their wages policy White Paper reconciles itself with the trade unions' rejection of that policy yesterday?

The Prime Minister

I have answered very many Questions about the criteria for wage settlements. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State made a very lengthy speech on this subject this morning. I would commend him to study that speech.

Sir G. Nabarro

Does the Prime Minister recognise that the nationalised industries themselves are in the van today of breaking all the Government-imposed norms, notably the Post Office with nine times and seven times respectively the norm imposed by the Government for increased postal charges? How can wages be held steady in circumstances of this kind?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that the publicly-owned industries have been the subject of references to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and the need for the increases arises from meeting the target which was set by both the previous Government and ourselves for the return on capital. The hon. Gentleman will be equally well aware that, if the same rate of productivity increase obtained in private industry as obtains in most of the nationalised industries, we would not be facing any of these problems.

Mr. Heath

It is now apparent that there is an open conflict between the Trades Union Congress and the Government in the matter of prices and incomes. The Trades Union Congress, in its letter to General Secretaries, points out that two divergent policies cannot exist together, with a 5 per cent. norm, which is the T.U.C.'s, and a 3½ per cent. ceiling, which is the Government's. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House what is the Government's attitude to this?

The Prime Minister

Yes, indeed. I dealt with it very fully in a speech I made last week to the Scottish T.U.C. I made it clear then that, although we shall seek to co-operate with the Trades Union Congress and its vetting machinery, the norm, the figures and the criteria laid down in our White Paper must be applied; and they will be applied as a result of the legislation we are bringing before the House.

Mr. Orme

Is not the Prime Minister aware that there is a great divergence of opinion about this matter? In fact, the C.B.I. talks about a nil norm, and the T.U.C. talks about a 5 per cent. norm. Does not the Prime Minister agree that the policy which he is advocating and which the First Secretary of State today advocates will not work and that he should go in for the T.U.C's policy of expansion and development?

The Prime Minister

The policy is for expansion and development. That was the theme of my right hon. Friend's speech this morning at Eastbourne. I am glad that my hon. Friend has moved so far in the matter of prices and incomes policy that at least he now accepts the T.U.C's policy.

Mr. Heath

If the Prime Minister cannot state the Government's attitude at present towards this conflict, will he at least make clear, as his hon. Friend asked, that the T.U.C. has a 5 per cent. norm and the Government have a nil norm?

The Prime Minister

We have made clear in the White Paper exactly what our position is. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly capable of reading it for himself. We have said that the nation cannot afford, on our calculations, increases of more than 3½ per cent., and that these have to be justified by the criteria laid down in the White Paper. There are no automatic increases, as is made clear in the White Paper. Further, it is slightly unfair to the T.U.C. to suggest that there will be a norm of 5 per cent., in the sense of that being an average, with some higher and some lower.

Mr. Marten

May I raise a very small point of order, Mr. Speaker? When the Prime Minister answered my supplementary question, instead of giving a direct answer which he knew, he referred me to a speech made at Eastbourne this morning by one of his colleagues. May we have as a trend a direct answer to the question instead of the questioner being referred to a speech made in the morning?

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is not a point of order.

Sir Knox Cunningham

On a point of order. If the Prime Minister refers to a speech which is not available to Members should not it be placed on the Table of the House?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I imagine that in the present circumstances that would have been impossible.

Mr. Heath

Further to that point of order. If you have ruled, Mr. Speaker, that it would not have bean possible to place it on the Table of the House, how is the Prime Minister right in referring to a speech of which hon. Members can have had only limited knowledge?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are still on a point of opinion rather than of order.